I don't know all the rules off hand, but their salary cap over there is half of what ours is (roughly), I'm not sure how much more he would garner really...what's he at now, 1/6 of the cap? Keep in mind, they dress 22 men, not 20 like us also. So that money has to stretch a tiny bit further.

"My message to owners and to players is, 'You guys make a lot of money and you make a lot of money on the backs of fans, so do right by your fans. You can figure out how to spread out a bunch of revenue that you're bringing in, but do right by the people who support you,"' Obama said. "And I shouldn't have to be involved in a dispute between really wealthy players and even wealthier owners. They should be able to settle this themselves. And remember who it is that's putting all that money in their pockets."

opie22002 wrote:"My message to owners and to players is, 'You guys make a lot of money and you make a lot of money on the backs of fans, so do right by your fans. You can figure out how to spread out a bunch of revenue that you're bringing in, but do right by the people who support you,"' Obama said. "And I shouldn't have to be involved in a dispute between really wealthy players and even wealthier owners. They should be able to settle this themselves. And remember who it is that's putting all that money in their pockets."

opie22002 wrote:"My message to owners and to players is, 'You guys make a lot of money and you make a lot of money on the backs of fans, so do right by your fans. You can figure out how to spread out a bunch of revenue that you're bringing in, but do right by the people who support you,"' Obama said. "And I shouldn't have to be involved in a dispute between really wealthy players and even wealthier owners. They should be able to settle this themselves. And remember who it is that's putting all that money in their pockets."

2 months ago: both sides talked, not enough progress. Meetings broke away and part of the season was cancelled.1 month ago: both sides talked, not enough progress. Meetings broke away and part of the season was cancelled.3 weeks ago: both sides talked, not enough progress. Meetings broke away and part of the season was cancelled.last week: both sides talked, not enough progress. Meetings broke away and part of the season was cancelled.tomorrow: both sides talk, not enough progress. Meeting breaks away and part of the season is cancelled.Next week: both sides talk, not enough progress. Meeting breaks away and part of the season is cancelled.

"The NHL wants to limit personal player contracts to five years, seven for a club to re-sign its own player and has elevated the issue to the highest level of importance. The union countered with an offer of an eight-year maximum length with the variable in salary being no greater than a 25 per cent difference between the highest-paid year of the deal and the lowest."

8 years and 25% means cap circumvention as it had been in these last several years. The players are more interested in getting paid than improving the game. I'm done with them. It will be hard rooting for any once hockey comes back. And I hope the league gives not an inch more. Time to squash them.

Seriously. There are a few of you here rooting for the players. That means you guys want cap circumvention to continue, yes?

It's not a matter of variance; I don't expect the owners to want the 25%, unless the 25% language actually means you subtract 25% from the highest value and that's the lowest you can go (which is how I originally interpreted it, incorrectly if I may add).

It's the contract year limits. You can still have 8 year contracts without circumvention. Find the middle ground (which IMO should be 6 year max for FA, 8 for returners. Gives the players longevity with a team, but doesn't handcuff the owners (basically adds 1 more year to the proposed)). The % variance is really meaningless unless you're talking straight year-by-year salary numbers.

I'd be OK with 6 years. Length isn't imporant to me, personally, but for whatever reason the league wants 5 years and I can't believe that this stalemate could be about a single year there. Seems silly on both sides, doesn't it? I would think it has more to do with the 5% - 25%.

Sarcastic wrote:I'd be OK with 6 years. Length isn't imporant to me, personally, but for whatever reason the league wants 5 years and I can't believe that this stalemate could be about a single year there. Seems silly on both sides, doesn't it? I would think it has more to do with the 5% - 25%.

Without a calculator/pen and paper, I couldn't give you a percentage that would be fair/how it would play out, but 5% really isn't enough to effectively keep cap hits low, and I have a feeling owners would find ways to exploit the system again or go crazy on FA's and offer insanely high deals to lure FA's, similar to how Parise and Suter were lured with huge signing bonuses in years 1 and 2.

Sarcastic wrote:But under no circumstance should the NHL agree to longer term and a higher % or the players get it all and we're back to teams cheating.

I don't think anybody here, myself included, thinks the players should get everything. We understand it. The players aren't going to get everything. However, the owners need to be willing to bend a little on these contract limits/variance things, even if it is only 1 or 2 years and 2 or 3 % on the variance. The players also need to recognize this and come down a little from the 25%.

We don't know if they have, though, because for some reason, they still won't meet and try to sort it out.

"The NHL wants to limit personal player contracts to five years, seven for a club to re-sign its own player and has elevated the issue to the highest level of importance. The union countered with an offer of an eight-year maximum length with the variable in salary being no greater than a 25 per cent difference between the highest-paid year of the deal and the lowest."

8 years and 25% means cap circumvention as it had been in these last several years. The players are more interested in getting paid than improving the game. I'm done with them. It will be hard rooting for any once hockey comes back. And I hope the league gives not an inch more. Time to squash them.

Seriously. There are a few of you here rooting for the players. That means you guys want cap circumvention to continue, yes?

25% difference between the highest paid and lowest paid, for the NHL's largest current contracts, would be $3mil. In those contracts, the variance is 92%, on average. Even Max Talbot's contract would be voided by this. While this would drive up total salaries if terms are longer, it would shift more dollars to stars (i.e. negatively affect 75% of the union who sees salaries drop before they benefit from this), and probably affect competition as some teams simply could not afford to buy the best available player. This suggestion is lose-lose, ironically.

Cap circumvention benefits owners (leverage cash to get the best available player) and players (more cap dollars per player) alike, but negatively affects competition and financial viability. The owners are trying to increase their levered positions with their offer, and the players are trying to push the cap as high as they can across the board. This is still a deep, broad chasm.

MRandall25 wrote:It's not a matter of variance; I don't expect the owners to want the 25%, unless the 25% language actually means you subtract 25% from the highest value and that's the lowest you can go (which is how I originally interpreted it, incorrectly if I may add).

It's the contract year limits. You can still have 8 year contracts without circumvention. Find the middle ground (which IMO should be 6 year max for FA, 8 for returners. Gives the players longevity with a team, but doesn't handcuff the owners (basically adds 1 more year to the proposed)). The % variance is really meaningless unless you're talking straight year-by-year salary numbers.

The NHLPA's wording was that the lowest year "can not be less than 25% of the highest year".

IIRC the NHL's wording on their variance is that a player's salary can change by more than 5% of the value of the first year. So if you sign a guy to $2-million in the first year of a contract, any successive years can't be any more than $100,000 off the previous year. It eliminates any kind of structured deals, even back-loading, and will end up inflating the salaries and cap hits of the stars.

Player can sign 8 year deals, but only the first 5 years is guarenteed, after that each year the owner has to agree to pay another year. if the owner wants out of the deal the player becomes a UFA. This contract would be for like Geno we can offer him 8 year 80 million, after year 5 Geno sucks we don't have to extend it another year. Or after year 5 you can say yes we want to extnd it again. If we don't he is a UFA and can go else where or resign with his current team.

Why would a player want that? If he sucks after 5 years he knows he'll get cut. If he overachieves, he'll still be stuck with the same team and contract. That's a lose-lose situation from a player's perspective.

Tico Rick wrote:Why would a player want that? If he sucks after 5 years he knows he'll get cut. If he overachieves, he'll still be stuck with the same team and contract. That's a lose-lose situation from a player's perspective.